User reviews

This is not strictly-speaking an adaption of Erich Maria Remarque's classic. A few minor incidents from the novel are included, but Remarque's biggest contribution to this film is the title. Given the ending of the film (as opposed to the book) the title is somewhat misleading, but it's such a classic that the film-makers' decision is quite understandable.

This is a brutal and uncompromising study of the realities of war. The fact the the war depicted took place more than a hundred years ago doesn't make it any less relevant. It could be shown in Ukraine today, and soldiers on both sides would understand.

Nor is the film's anti-war message terribly new. It is, however, a message that needs to be repeated over and over again, until (maybe) enough people take it seriously.

The battle scenes are appallingly visceral - possibly the best of their type since the opening of Saving Private Ryan.

The history of any war is written by the winners, but that doesn't stop them being a tragedy for the poor grunts on the losing side as well.

I'm really a Film Nerd and I've watched many famous and less famous war movies, too. Until this Evening, the beach-sequene and the final of Saving Private Ryan was one of the most intense experiences I've seen on the big screen.

But what Berger and his teams show here is still incredible & and the most horryfying depiction of war I've ever seen before.

The violence makes you feel sick, there were really some moments I thought I have to leave the cinema. Shooting, Explosions, blood, cold, wetness, Tanks, flamethrowers and inhuman suffering. Meaningless suffering.

Yes, theire are some flaws in the Story, but Overall it works out fine. Music, acting and production design are phenomenal!

But the violience, I still can't believe it. Go watch - afterwards you'll definetley be pacifist.

8/10.

This movie did something I didn't expect from a World War movie...it makes you feel empathetic for the Germans. To an extent.

I'm no war buff so I'll leave the realism to the experts but what this movie does is show you the first World War from the view point of people who've never experienced or even conceived of war and bloodshed on this scale. It starts off with new recruits full of patriotism for their country expecting to be sent on a grand adventure only to have those expectations quickly shattered. Turns out war isn't fun, and not even initially due to the actual fighting. Just training and constantly being screamed at and controlled while marching your days away is brutal. Remember, while vehicles existed, they weren't common use at this period of time...these soldiers had to walk, walk, and walk some more to get to where the war effort was taking place. And even if they had vehicles most of those places didn't have roads yet to drive them on. Then there's the constant lack of food and water, rough sleeping conditions, being exposed to the elements. Just GETTING to the war is brutal. That's a good 3rd of the movie right there.

Then close to the half way point, after a few minor skirmishes, we see the war front and the trenches and get to see what that's like. Well...it's terrible! You pop up out of a trench and boom...you're shot. And that's just life in between charges. There was no strategy to the charges either, they relied on waves of bodies to gain even 100 meters, hoping to out pace the bullets constantly coming your way. Millions of young men died in this fashion, their bodies littering the field.

The most brutal part of the film is the weapons of war never before seen. Tanks, flame throwers, planes dropping bombs. Men screaming in pure terror while the bullet proof tanks drive over them, while flames fill their trenches, or planes blow them up while they flee.

And the odd thing is since we're seeing it from the eyes of the young German soldiers, who are truly clueless as to why they're really even fighting, you do empathize and feel sorry for them. You find yourself even rooting for them. This movie humanizes them but importantly shows the politicians who are truly to blame for the atrocities. The powerful men behind the scenes, bloated from being overfed on rich foods, hundreds of miles away from the pain and suffering they cause.

I have no idea how accurate this movie is but it's a pretty straight forward piece showing just how awful, terrifying, and destructive this period of time was. I really enjoyed it and recommend it to any fans of this genre.

Oh dear. I still feel bad. But not because the film is bad. Because it shows how incredibly bad that time was. Especially for the young men who were forced to go to war. I'm from Osnabrück - the city where Erich Maria Remarque was born - and when they named the city in the film... my body is still shaking. The actors were amazing. I dont like german films so much, but this is different. The camera, the sound. Its perfect (except one role - otherwise it would be a 10 for me). I even didn't touch my snacks in the cinema. You really have to see this movie. Because it shows the cruel time in a way that perhaps no film has ever done before. However, if you want to spend a nice evening in a good mood, don't watch it. Because it really pulls you down. But it's all worth it. Thanks for this history lesson!

A fascinating film with potential that was never fully achieved. "All Quiet on the Western Front" does not rely solely on shock value to disturb its audience; instead, it uses the horrors of war to sober them with facts and dismal realities. The film's story was worth telling; it left an impression long after the credits rolled. It dealt with many weighty themes, including a young man's journey through war, the difficulties of combat, the cruelty of desperation, and the value of friendship and camaraderie, all of which were handled with grace and artistry. Furthermore, it boasted first-rate production values, breathtaking visuals, a terrific score (although maybe a tad bit over the top), and stellar acting. Although there is much to praise about the film, "All Quiet on the Western Front" is ultimately hampered by its drawn-out length, the plot dragging in spots, and several confusing moments. All the pieces were in place for "All Quiet on the Western Front" to be the best picture of the year, and in some respects, it is. Fans of the genre, or anyone who appreciates a well-made film, should not miss this film despite its limitations.

Rating: 7.5/10 (Impressive)

In the excellent 1930s original, war is seldom better summarised than by: 'It's dirty and painful to die for your country, when it comes to dying for your country it's better not to die at all. There are millions out there dying for their countries, and what good does it do?'.

It's a statement that applies just as well today, and complimented by this outstanding piece of film making too, which leaves us under no illusions of man's inhumanity to man. The performances are truly incredible, the technical achievement recreating scenes of war outstanding, and the messages as clear as any about the futility of armed combat and the inability of the human race to learn its lessons - even to this day. Not really a film to enjoy, but certainly a film to reflect on how far we haven't come since 1918, especially in a world that often seems so intent on pulling itself apart.

I think one of the main problem with the film that they wanted to cram into too many things, too much background information about the war. There are scenes about politics and hackneyed war characters, which I think only interrupts the main plot. (we all know the main story from school, or its 2 min. To read in wikipedia) They even changed the original (book) date of the action to the end of the war - probably to make the deaths and losses feel even more pointless - but I think it was unnecessary.

The book is a masterpiece, which I would suggest everyone should read, so then hopefully noone would ever feel that war is a nice idea.

However this film doesn't remind me of that classic except that there are some characters with the same name from the book, but they have almost no resemblance to the original personalities. Which could be ok, if it was conceptual, but unfortunately they just became more shallow, and it was very hard to sympathize with them.

Althoough the film seems historically authentic (thats why I gave 5 stars), but lacks that dramatical dephtness, which the book has. I know that its a crazy hard task to screen literatures like this, so I shouldn't be too harsh with my critics, but unfortunately I just saw 1917 some days ago, and I have to say, that 1917 is a much more authentic visualisation of the athmosphere of the book "All Quiet on the Western Front" (even though the plot is completely different) than this film with the same title.

Never expected a netflix movie to shake me to my core but this film kept me frozen in my seat even after a few minutes into the ending credits. It made me think about war and what it does to people. Just as the book had done. But this time due to the superb acting, marvelous cinematography and flawless direction that feeling will stay with me for a long time. They took a great desicion by using an all German cast which made it feel ever more real. And the way they made me feel connected to the charecters. I mourned each one of them and kept praying for the movie to be war soon ,so they could get a happy ending.

Germany, May 1917. 17-year-old Paul Baumer enthusiastically enlists in the German army and heads off to war. His head is filled with patriotism, honour, visions of heroism and the confidence that Germany will win the war. He soon learns that his impressions of war are far from the reality.

Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front" was first published in 1929. It was quite revolutionary, depicting the horrific reality of war rather than the glamourous, sanitised version. In a sense it was the first anti-war novel. It was so unflinching in its portrayal of WW1 that the Nazi party regarded it as treasonous and had the book banned and stripped Remarque of his German citizenship, causing him to flee to Switzerland and ultimately the US.

In 1930 Hollywood made the book into a movie. It was superb, capturing well the horrors that Remarque depicted in his book. It deservedly won the Oscar for Best Picture (and Best Director) in 1930.

In 1979 it was adapted again, this time as a made-for-TV movie. Despite being directed by Delbert Mann and boasting a star-studded cast (Richard Thomas, Ernest Borgnine, Ian Holm, Donald Pleasance) this version was far from being in the same league as the 1930 version and didn't do the book justice. It is quite tame and the performances are quite subdued.

This, the 2022 version, once again captures the essence of the book and is quite unflinching in its portrayal of war. Graphic scenes and realistic plot show the wastefulness and horror of war.

Not as good as the 1930 version though: the characters aren't as fully developed, limiting engagement, and the plot feels a bit padded. A few drawn out scenes could easily have been shorter without losing any detail. Some style-over-substance elements too as the director went overboard with the special effects he had at his disposal (the French counter-attack with tanks and flamethrowers is a good example). The droning sound didn't help either (clearly the director has watched Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk").

I'm truly conflicted: "All Quiet on The Western Front" is a surprisingly stark & cold film upon first watch, capturing the futility of war, loss of youth & corruption of innocence with an unsettling lack of emotion throughout.

It's something I couldn't help but notice as I tuned in; usually in historical war films (like Sam Mendes' "1917" for instance, following events through the eyes of the opposing British side), we're accustomed to typically witnessing soldier's actions depicted as valiant & honourable, with a palpable sense of pride & patriotism embedded throughout - in pieces which are made to catalogue their innumerable brave achievements conducted by every-day folk (who, through no fault of their own, found themselves in the trenches), in spite of insurmountable odds comprehensively stacked against them... But here, there's no dignity in anything that transpires; obstacles aren't admirably overcome, the ensemble don't conduct themselves in a way which is befitting of their station, worthy of respect & none of the characters win any semblance of what could honestly be described as "glory"... They're just young, impressionable fools - drunk on propaganda - who have mindlessly partaken in the unwarranted military occupation of foreign land, where they are obviously not welcome by the inhabitants. Due to this, there's a void of relatability & moreover, all the team of participants can dream of - once they arrive at the front - or endeavour to guarantee for themselves is survival, not greatness.

However, despite this inability to sympathise being an irksome grievance of mine, in the production's defense, I suppose that's actually intentional & rather the whole point (?), since it's meant to tell the story through the perspective of the vanquished, not the conquerors, reflecting how naive recruits (who'd been fatally misled, in conscripting themselves & their families in the first place) were gradually numbed to their feelings by the constant mental & physical anguish inflicted upon them in a continuous onslaught of pointless offensives (instigated by their generals), once reality had firmly bitten & they'd been collectively disabused of this fantasy - but unfortunately, that noticeable detachment from any of the characters featured results in a somewhat muted response (as a viewer) when they're incessantly chewed up & spat out by the gratuitous violence - that's shot in a hauntingly raw, ominous way - they're repeatedly (& needlessly) thrust in to by the callous, cowardly officers, who arrogantly orchestrate the entire miserable situation that needn't last a single day longer.

Again, I suppose that only reaffirms the statement the creators are trying to make, wilfully juxtaposing intense sequences of suffering & pain with little sentimentality & ambivalence; the film chronicles how Germany treated (or more accurately, mistreated) its own people, offering up generations of its future citizens on the battlefield as sacrificial lambs, massacred at the altar of a poisonous, nationalistic ideology which had taken root within the governing population; boys - barely men, even some who weren't yet - were essentially reduced to nothing but disposable, unimportant objects, thoughtlessly discarded & simply replaced in a sadistic game & quest for absolute power (no matter the personal cost or price paid in blood) - an incalculable loss which (even by the time the armistice came in to effect) still wasn't enough to satiate the tyrannical desires of the few, controlling the many... And the movie does therefore (to its credit) accurately reflect that exact point in its portrayal of the poor cannon fodder by representing them as exactly that, & additionally lenses the apathy of the superiors (who give the indefensible orders) through a perspective of rightful, scornful contempt.

Hence, I can understand the creative intentions (depicting the utter, irredeemable meaninglessness; the wanton, senseless destruction) & the grim inhumanity of it all... Yet after seeing such horrors & heinous cruelties, I guess I felt like I wanted a purpose to everything I'd sat through by the time the credits started rolling - & thought I'd been cheated by the fact that there wasn't one. On the other hand, like I acknowledge earlier, I assume that's not accidental - & rather the understandably cynical, bitter & despondent conclusion the narrative decidedly wants the audience to come to by the time it reaches its unsatisfactory denouement; there is no discernible reason that could ever hope to justify the carnage we observe - the savagery that unfolds is simply slaughter for the sheer sake of it & the trauma experienced by all those affected was utterly preventable, had the invaders put aside their vanity & pride & sought to preserve peace which could've so effortlessly been maintained.

Plus, it does also show one massive miscalculation on the side of the victors; forcing the Germans in to reluctant submission & backing them in to signing an agreement with terms they couldn't accept would ultimately entrench resentful animosity that would act as a spark to light the fire of the 2nd World War, only a few decades later etc. Foreshadowing what was to come before anyone could predict the oncoming calamity. Due to this, irrespective of what I think (or more aptly, how little it evoked within me), I must concede that it remains a success, regardless - because the project undoubtedly achieved its goal in a commendably brutal & unflinching manner - & I can't plausibly surmise any alternative which would've resulted in something better.

Just a made for critics / awards cinematic "masterpiece. No story, don't care about the characters, just war is so pointless. Well I know that already.. Give it a miss unless you like just cinematography or "free" on Netflix.

Saving graces I guess: beautiful scenery, music score is nice, don't see many war movies from the German perspective. Quite sad obviously it is about World War I. I was making the point that unlike World War II we really don't know any of the leaders on either side for World War I. Just really thankful at the end that nuclear weapons has meant no world war for over 70 years.

From its brutally minimalist staccato soundtrack, its consistently excellent cinematography and numerous memorable scenes, this movie is an impressive attempt to envisage the hellish existence of the average soldier on the Western Front.

My only regret is I didn't watch this at the cinema.

For the participants and victims, no war can be said to be better or worse than another, yet there is something about the combination of devastating machinery and almost medieval hand-to-hand combat; the mind-boggling numbers of people involved in the war of attrition; the constant inhuman degradation, suffering and industrialised slaughter of WW1, that makes it stand out.

This was the war that should have ended all wars.

Daily life in the trenches must have been awful enough: exposure to extreme temperatures, lack of sleep, hunger, disease, boredom, loneliness and despair, literally stuck in mud for days, months, even years. Add to that the constant threat of poisonous gas, artillery bombardment, snipers, drowning in the collapse of trenches or the dreaded command to 'go over the top' and face almost certain death, injury or loss.

Imagine living day-to-day in this hellscape - often side by side with the rotting corpses of your friends.

To many of us, living in relative comfort, these experiences are unimaginable.

Watch it for the visceral experience. Contemplate it whenever you catch yourself feeling sorry for yourself.